Nirvikalpa
Unapologetic Feminist

I get your point. What Sonny Tufts seems to be missing is the fact that you don't pick your plaintiffs. Well....sometimes people do. Rosa Parks wasn't the first black women not to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus, but the woman before her was a single mom and back then the left cared about appearances. Fast forward to the 21st century and a druggie who robbed a pregnant woman at gunpoint, but nonetheless was murdered by a cop (no excuse for Chauvin to have his knee on Floyd's neck 2 minutes after Floyd no longer had a pulse), became an international hero for....dying. And it's not like there haven't been more sympathetic black people killed by police. Elijah McClain was just walking home listening to music, wearing a ski mask because of his allergies and he was attacked by police and then overdosed by EMTs with ketamine. That was just a year before George Floyd. But how many people know his name? (I had to look it up). I think Floyd was a matter of timing. It was close enough to affect the 2020 election and far enough away from the First Step Act for all of the goodwill Trump had generated in the black community to have evaporated.

Possible perjury for him having said he didn't have such messages on his phone. Needlessly delaying and driving up the litigation costs by not cooperating with discovery. Disobeying a lawful court order. Yes. The attorney screwed up multiple ways. But it also sounds like Alex didn't tell the truth about whether or not he did any texts about Sandy Hook. There are two possibilities. 1) Alex just "forgot" and his lawyer didn't refresh his memory by helping him search through his own cell phone. 2) AJ didn't want the records out and told his attorney not to turn them over. It's still his attorney's screw up. He should have convinced Alex to turn the records over and explained to him how they would mitigate the situation. The Paul Joseph Watson comment about the COVID dummies and his statement "This is like Sandy Hook" wasn't necessarily fatal to their case. They could have argued that both were examples of unintentional mistakes that were cleared up as soon as possible. Sometimes the best answer is "I don't recall" as opposed to an emphatic "No." But also in this case there was a specific question that Alex could easily check and verify. Further, 99% of the time before you have someone under oath you do written discovery AKA interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Normally you have 30 days to comply though the time often gets extended. So there was probably an interrogatory question on paper that said "Do you send or receive any text messages about Sandy Hook" followed by "produce any text messages you sent or received about Sandy Hook." The lawyer should have found that, told Alex the answer to the interrogatory was "yes" and then created a file with a copy of all of those messages to turn over. Why that didn't happen? That's between Alex and his lawyer.

Of all the lies NPR and other leftists peddled, this is the one I find the most shocking. Politics also intruded into NPR’s Covid coverage, most notably in reporting on the origin of the pandemic. One of the most dismal aspects of Covid journalism is how quickly it defaulted to ideological story lines. For example, there was Team Natural Origin—supporting the hypothesis that the virus came from a wild animal market in Wuhan, China. And on the other side, Team Lab Leak, leaning into the idea that the virus escaped from a Wuhan lab. The lab leak theory came in for rough treatment almost immediately, dismissed as racist or a right-wing conspiracy theory. Anthony Fauci and former NIH head Francis Collins, representing the public health establishment, were its most notable critics. And that was enough for NPR. We became fervent members of Team Natural Origin, even declaring that the lab leak had been debunked by scientists. But that wasn’t the case. When word first broke of a mysterious virus in Wuhan, a number of leading virologists immediately suspected it could have leaked from a lab there conducting experiments on bat coronaviruses. This was in January 2020, during calmer moments before a global pandemic had been declared, and before fear spread and politics intruded.

Plaintiff's attorney : Mr. Jones, we have text messages that your lawyer accidentally sent to me of the very discovery that you said you didn't have. Alex Jones: I guess you've got your Perry Mason moment. Alex Jones' lawyers thought bubble : "Man we screwed up! And we didn't object based on privilege so it's a double screw up."

So....how did the guy in the green vest not hit the guy in the truck when he shot at him from a few feet away multiple times?

Could very well be. After Sulimani was assassinated, Iran "attacked" a U.S. base in a way that caused no casualties. On the flip side I've heard the argument that Iran was using cheap drones to draw down Israel's Iron Dome interceptors.

A couple of days ago, Scott Ritter predicted Iran would "attack Israel within 24 hours." I'm kicking myself for not following through on my hunch to buy some oil futures.

The polarization was the fault of the media. Ask yourself this question. When before or since was there daily polls about whether or not someone was guilty or innocent? And then they broke the polls down by race. Even with that I saw some black people not cheering in ^that video and some white people were cheering. Also, where was all of the scrutiny of the Robert Blake acquittal? Robert Blake (I remember him as Beretta on TV), shot and killed his wife (admitted) and claimed it was an accident when he was cleaning his gun. He died last year. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/09/1162501709/robert-blake-the-actor-acquitted-in-wifes-killing-dies-at-89

I'm speaking only for myself. I watched the trial intently. The police and prosecution fxcked up with the chain of evidence. And the DNA lab in the OJ trial wasn't even accredited. I think some people would have found OJ guilty regardless and some would have found OJ not guilty regardless. Some still think Derek Chauvin is innocent despite the knee on the neck 2 1/2 minutes after the George Floyd no longer had a pulse. Some think Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty despite video showing him running AWAY from the white child rapist who was trying to take his gun. (The race of Kyle's victims is important because people try to make something racial out of it even t though everyone his shot was white.) There's the the Central Park 6 that Trump still thinks are guilty despite someone else already having been convicted of that crime. Oh, and what about Harvey Milk's killer Dan White who got off on the "Twinkie Defense?" I saw one of those (white) jurors who said "He seemed like such a nice young man. There had to be SOME reason for him to do what he did." At the end of the day there are 12 people who have 12 opinions that may or may not agree with yours. After that....life tends to go on. Edit: One more thing. I know more than one black democrat that thought OJ was guilty the whole time and at least one white republican that still thought OJ was innocent even after OJ wrote the book "How I would have done it." And I've gone from thinking Michael Jackson was innocent of pedophilia to thinking he was guilty to now thinking he probably was innocent and my latest switch to thinking he was innocent came from a Candace Owens monologue.

That's what I was thinking. Most people got a little bit of everyone in them so exempt everybody.

Cyber attack?

Recover lost wages? What he's really trying to do is get more taxes.

Alex Jones is a canary in the coal mine. What happens to him happens to others. Alex Jones got de-platformed, others got de-platformed. Alex Jones was attacked through defamation lawsuits, Fox News got attacked by defamation lawsuits and Tucker is still being smeared on that when he was the one telling the truth. It's the tactics being used that are important to consider.

I looked this story up. Canada actually calls their euthenization regime "MAD" or 'Medically Assisted Death." The judge literally said that if doctors aren't allowed to kill her, she will suffer irreparable harm. https://thebridgehead.ca/2024/03/27/canadian-judge-rules-27-year-old-autistic-woman-can-be-euthanized-to-prevent-irreparable-harm-to-her/ On March 14, I reported on the story of a 27-year-old Albertan woman with autism who had been approved for euthanasia in December; she was planning to receive a lethal injection on February 1 when her father, whom she lives with, successfully obtained a temporary court injunction the day prior. Her father argued that her autism and “possibly other undiagnosed maladies do not satisfy the eligibility criteria for MAiD ”; the daughter’s attorney argued that it was “none of business.” It fell to Court of King’s Bench Justice Colin Feasby to examine the approval process and to determine whether the young woman was eligible for suicide-by-doctor. He admitted to being troubled by the case. “As a court, I can’t go second guessing these MAiD assessors… but I’m stuck with this: the only comprehensive assessment of this person done says she’s normal,” Feasby stated. “That’s really hard.” It shouldn’t have been. The desperate father has received another brutal setback in his quest to save his daughter from Canada’s euthanasia regime. On March 25, Feasby ruled that the injunction preventing her death be lifted. As the Calgary Herald put it: “Preventing a Calgary woman’s medically assisted death would cause her irreparable harm, a judge ruled Monday.” Reread that sentence a moment and let it sink in: preventing a woman’s death would cause her irreparable harm. In Canada’s euthanasia regime, words mean nothing. Suicide is healthcare. Stopping suicide causes irreparable harm. Death… doesn’t, somehow.

The push for suicide is now literal. Did you see this thread? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?566288-Depressed-but-healthy-Netherlands-woman-opts-to-be-euthenized&p=7223672#post7223672

So...interesting. I read through your link and I saw some direct application to this story: 1. Fear of Abandonment One of the defining characteristics of Borderline Personality Disorder is fear of abandonment. The idea of being alone terrifies people with BPD and causes them a great deal of anxiety. Whether the threat of abandonment is real or imagined, it can produce a very strong response in people with BPD. They may beg their loved ones to stay, threaten self-harm or even suicide, seek revenge, have an affair, become very angry and verbally or physically abusive,

Yes. That would be a good counter argument. To beat qualified immunity you have to argue that the government agent acted outside the scope of his employment. That said I've seen some fascists win on qualified immunity on some bizarre fact patterns. I was just saying they can't argue standing at all because lack of standing means you weren't personally damaged by the act and there's no way anyone can argue AJ wasn't personally damaged.

They can't argue lack of standing on this one. They might argue qualified immunity though.